Verdicts

On his second day at NCMC, the plaintiffs' son had a violent outburst and had to be physically restrained. While tied down to a hospital bed, he was injected with the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, as well as with the sedative Atavin. He soon went into cardiac arrest. His parents agreed to have him taken off life support days later, when it became clear that their son would not recover.

The plaintiff parents brought a 42 U.S.C ' 1983 claim against the NCMC and two healthcare providers there, claiming that the administration of Haldol was a violation of their son's civil rights under the 14th amendment, because the defendants should have waited to see if the physical restraints and the sedative were enough to calm the situation. The defendants moved for dismissal of the civil rights claims, which the district court denied. On appeal, the defendants claimed that they were not state actors for the purposes of ' 1983, so a civil rights claim should not lie. A ' 1983 claim requires a showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived a party of a federally protected right.

The plaintiffs did not contest NCMC's status as a private hospital nor the doctor's and nurse's status as privately employed individuals. Their state action theory was based entirely on Colorado's statutory scheme allowing 72-hour involuntary mental health holds and NCMC's role as a state-sanctioned “designated facility” for that purpose. Because NCMC was delegated authority by the State to involuntarily commit and treat patients on the State's behalf, the plaintiffs asserted that the State of Colorado had transformed the medical facility and its healthcare employees into “state actors.” Thus, according to the plaintiffs, NCMC's and its employees' actions in administering the Haldol to their son were taken under color of state law.

The appeals court discussed four theories under which private actors have been treated under the law as state actors. They are: 1) The Nexus Test (under which a private actor becomes a state actor for ' 1983 purposes if the state exercises sufficient coercive power over the challenged action; 2) The Public Function Test (which asks if the disputed action is one traditionally exclusively reserved for the state); 3) The Joint Action Test (where the state and the individual work together to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right); or 4) The Symbiotic Relationship/Entwinement Test (where the state becomes so interdependent with a private party that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights). None of these applied, the court determined, because the State of Colorado merely permitted the hospital to accept patients under circumstances similar to the one presented here, and permitted it to retain any admitted patients for up to 72 hours.

However, the State did not require that these people be admitted, and did not dictate the sorts of treatment they should receive once admitted. Because of this “hands-off” stance, the hospital and its healthcare providers were merely contractors to the State of Colorado, and they were not state actors for the purposes of ' 1983.

Having found that the ' 1983 actions should have been dismissed on the defendants' motions, the court declined to reach the question of whether the deceased had a constitutional right to be free from the injection of Haldol in an emergency situation.

'

'

Hospital Not a 'State Actor'

Because the State of Colorado did not control the actions of a hospital and its staff that cared for a man arrested and taken there for treatment, the hospital and its healthcare providers could not be deemed “state actors,” and they were not subject to liability for deprivation of civil rights in accordance with 42 U.S.C.S. ' 1983. Wittner v. Banner Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12875 10th Cir. 6/24/13).

The plaintiff parents' son was arrested after he made threats against his employer. The police took him to the North Colorado Medical Center (NCMC). The authority for the officer to do this is found in Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 27-65-105(1)(a)(I) (2012), which provides that a police officer (or certain others) may take a person who appears to have a mental illness and to be a danger to himself or others into custody, and take that person to a facility designated by the Colorado Department of Human Services for a 72-hour hold, for the purposes of evaluation and treatment. According to Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 27-65-105(4), however, such designated medical facilities are not required to admit any person brought to them. NCMC had been designated by the Colorado Department of Human Services as a facility authorized to treat people under the law. NCMC admitted the man brought to them in this case.

On his second day at NCMC, the plaintiffs' son had a violent outburst and had to be physically restrained. While tied down to a hospital bed, he was injected with the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, as well as with the sedative Atavin. He soon went into cardiac arrest. His parents agreed to have him taken off life support days later, when it became clear that their son would not recover.

The plaintiff parents brought a 42 U.S.C ' 1983 claim against the NCMC and two healthcare providers there, claiming that the administration of Haldol was a violation of their son's civil rights under the 14th amendment, because the defendants should have waited to see if the physical restraints and the sedative were enough to calm the situation. The defendants moved for dismissal of the civil rights claims, which the district court denied. On appeal, the defendants claimed that they were not state actors for the purposes of ' 1983, so a civil rights claim should not lie. A ' 1983 claim requires a showing that a person acting under color of state law deprived a party of a federally protected right.

The plaintiffs did not contest NCMC's status as a private hospital nor the doctor's and nurse's status as privately employed individuals. Their state action theory was based entirely on Colorado's statutory scheme allowing 72-hour involuntary mental health holds and NCMC's role as a state-sanctioned “designated facility” for that purpose. Because NCMC was delegated authority by the State to involuntarily commit and treat patients on the State's behalf, the plaintiffs asserted that the State of Colorado had transformed the medical facility and its healthcare employees into “state actors.” Thus, according to the plaintiffs, NCMC's and its employees' actions in administering the Haldol to their son were taken under color of state law.

The appeals court discussed four theories under which private actors have been treated under the law as state actors. They are: 1) The Nexus Test (under which a private actor becomes a state actor for ' 1983 purposes if the state exercises sufficient coercive power over the challenged action; 2) The Public Function Test (which asks if the disputed action is one traditionally exclusively reserved for the state); 3) The Joint Action Test (where the state and the individual work together to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right); or 4) The Symbiotic Relationship/Entwinement Test (where the state becomes so interdependent with a private party that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights). None of these applied, the court determined, because the State of Colorado merely permitted the hospital to accept patients under circumstances similar to the one presented here, and permitted it to retain any admitted patients for up to 72 hours.

However, the State did not require that these people be admitted, and did not dictate the sorts of treatment they should receive once admitted. Because of this “hands-off” stance, the hospital and its healthcare providers were merely contractors to the State of Colorado, and they were not state actors for the purposes of ' 1983.

Having found that the ' 1983 actions should have been dismissed on the defendants' motions, the court declined to reach the question of whether the deceased had a constitutional right to be free from the injection of Haldol in an emergency situation.

'

'